Poll: Morality in Nuclear War

[EightGaugeHippo]

No, unless its against Aliens.

 

[rabidmidget]

Ideally, one should never let it get to the stage where launching a bomb is even an option, but morally, I would probably side with Utilitarianism on this one.

 

[crudus]

Nope. It doesn't matter how much evidence you have of a nuclear strike coming. History will not look kindly upon it. Enough controversy is around Nagasaki and Hiroshima as it is and there was reason to do it.

 

[Booze Zombie]

Nukes are inherently overkill and massively damaging to civilians, they also seem pretty pointless.
Why would you nuke a place you want to control?

 

[glodud]

I'd say no, unless you're 100% sure that the opposition will hit you with similar weapons if you don't. There is still something like proportionality and avoiding civil targets.

Isn't that a little hypocritical? it's like saying you will use nukes to stop nukes

 

[FC Groningen]

I'd say no, unless you're 100% sure that the opposition will hit you with similar weapons if you don't. There is still something like proportionality and avoiding civil targets.

Isn't that a little hypocritical, it's like saying you will use nukes to stop nukes

I meant it as a last resort. Its usually too late by then, because if you fire, the opposite side will probably fire as well. Don't get me wrong, I'm 100% against the use of nukes and I also think that something is very off about the way the US is trying to control the nuclear weapon sector, also because so far they are the only ones using it.

 

[Cabisco]

Without the MAD principle I think it might have been concievable to see a country strike first for what they believed is 'the greater good' but really a weapon of such massive destruction would have to be only launched under the most extreme circumstances, not on a country like North Korea who's antics are just laughable and who's people are starving.

Though I think the whole idea of nukes was told best in Yes Prime Minister, hell the british defense policy as a whole was desribed best on that programme:

 

[Kron_the_mad wants to be deleted]

Well lets think on the one time that a nuke has been used first. It was used to end the war quickly and keep lives from being lost. If it hadn't been dropped, many more people would've likely died.

I guess you could use that as the standard.

Except that one time it had never been used before, and no one had anything like it.

Except that one time has been burned into our collective conscience as one of the biggest mistakes ever made.

I'm going to go right ahead and call everyone who voted yes here a bunch of fucking idiots. You think there's ever a good time to use nuclear weapons? Please ban me from this shithole before I say something I'd regret.

You've got a wonderful attitude yourself.

It's looked back at as a mistake because people don't see how much more life might've been lost if it hadn't been dropped. It's like how the current recession we're in, everyone's pissed with how it's been handled, but if it wasn't handled how it was, we'd be right back in that great depression.

There can be a right time for anything, and a Nuke certainly can have its' uses. You complaining about peoples opinions on a poll, however, is simply idiotic.

Let's just clear something up, it was well known that Japan had been seeking a peaceful end to the war long before any bombs were dropped.
Nukes were used against a country that was actively trying to surrender, they were dropped on a largely civillian target.
The only thing the nuke did was ensure that Japan would be governed by the allied commanders, this was the only real sticking point of any peace treaty as they wanteed to maintain their system of government.

 

[Angerwing]

Well lets think on the one time that a nuke has been used first. It was used to end the war quickly and keep lives from being lost. If it hadn't been dropped, many more people would've likely died.

I guess you could use that as the standard.

Except that one time it had never been used before, and no one had anything like it.

Except that one time has been burned into our collective conscience as one of the biggest mistakes ever made.

I'm going to go right ahead and call everyone who voted yes here a bunch of fucking idiots. You think there's ever a good time to use nuclear weapons? Please ban me from this shithole before I say something I'd regret.

I agree with you that using nukes is the most horrific choice humanity can make. But don't be so naive and idealistic. Sure, nukes are the be all and end all of human violence, but what other option do you have when you have a fanatical nation able and willing to nuke your country into dust? What if the only possible option is a preemptive nuclear strike?

Sure, it's absolutely wrong, but sometimes it's the only possible action. In that case it can never be right, but it may possibly be justified.

So don't be going all hostile and offensive on people who have a more realistic view on a situation more complex than anyone on this forum can comprehend fully.

 

[BoosterGold]

I hope to god that there is never a reason to ever use nuclear weapons. I took a semester on the Nuclear weapons and film and it was basically showing the horrors done to the Japanese bomb victims if and atom bomb does that i din't want to see what the H-bomb would do to people

 

[Berserker119]

No, unless its against Aliens.

Yeah, but if we know where they are, chances are, we're already dead.

 

[AVATAR_RAGE]

Nukes are a last resort even greater than a war

 

[Frybird]

Thanks to the long term effects of the Radiation, i think that are pretty much done with morality once you consider using nukes.

It sounds kind of shallow when i say it like this, but Nuclear Weapons are one of the few objects i consider as "evil".

 

[StANDY1338]

Use them on aliens then its cool.

 

[Killerscape]

Hell I just voted yes because I live in a country that poses no threat to the rest of the world and will definetly not get hit. Besides I'm looking forward to something to spice life up. And or create a new world order of my gun is bigger than yours. Only on a personal scale like fallout.

 

[FC Groningen]

It does not work for fanatics. For example, A nuclear war that kills millions on each side of the fence means absolutely nothing to Islamic radicals as it gets them through the door to heaven

Except Islamic radicals will never ever have access to a nuclear weapon, nor will they ever have the launch capability even if they could get their hands on a war head. And don't even say they could just throw it in a van then set it off, because it's not that easy they have fail safes, The neutrons must hit the plutonium and or Uranium in a specific manner and not just by blowing it up with a common explosion.

Even the during the poorest moment of the soviet union now russia, Security at silo's and stockpiles never dropped, North Korea only has half a dozen at best, costing them billions to produce they aren't just going to give something like that away to some radical group with a small chance of success, Pakistan has no will to arm any group with weapons either.

Something is really off about just worrying about muslim extremists. I consider Israël more willing to launch a nuclear missle than any muslim country.

 

[thethain]

Let's just clear something up, it was well known that Japan had been seeking a peaceful end to the war long before any bombs were dropped.
Nukes were used against a country that was actively trying to surrender, they were dropped on a largely civillian target.
The only thing the nuke did was ensure that Japan would be governed by the allied commanders, this was the only real sticking point of any peace treaty as they wanteed to maintain their system of government.

Umm I must have had the wrong history books, because mine had basically said the japanese policy was to fight until every soldier had died (in fact some at Iwo Jima didn't surrender until years after the war). And that even after the first bomb Japan believed that it wasn't the US that had even caused it. And, even after the bombs, the terms of surrender still refused to place any blame on the emperor, who would have undoubtedly been involved in the decision to go to war.